I was going to cut and paste a lot of the above comments and reply to them individually but it would take too long. So, I will answer the question this way:

1.

Really? Are you serious? Do you think the Attorney General has nothing better to do than to try to force those states to change their gun laws? Do you think the US Attorneys in NY and NJ have so little on their plates that they are going to just whip up lawsuits against those states' firearms laws? That presumes those US Attorneys (a) care about the states' firearms laws and (b) don't agree with them - and this item b could be a real issue in such jurisdictions where so many folks are anti-gun. So that's problem number 1 to consider. Then there is this:

2.

Until the McDonald case the Second Amendment did not even apply to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This landmark SCOTUS decision, using the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. THAT WAS 2010!!!

So the ink is still wet on that decision and its impact on the States and what they can and cannot do. This is especially so because the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the Heller case - See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), two years earlier, said that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited and he specifically noted that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

(Note to the mods - if there is a copyright on any of that it belongs to the Supreme Court/Federal government but I think it is all public domain).


The sum and substance of those two cases is that until the SCOTUS says otherwise the States are still free to impose reasonable restrictions on firearms. So no US Attorney General is going to try to force anything in the world of gun regulations or the lack thereof on any states across the country.